Abstract

The crucial role that Antarctic sea ice plays in the global climate system is strongly linked to its thickness. While field observations are too sparse in the Antarctic to determine long-term trends of the Antarctic sea ice thickness (SIT) on a hemispheric scale, satellite radar altimetry data can be applied with a promising prospect. European Space Agency Climate Change Initiative – Sea Ice Project (ESA SICCI) includes sea ice freeboard and sea ice thickness derived from Envisat, covering the entire Antarctic year-round from 2002 to 2012. In this study, the SICCI Envisat SIT in the Antarctic is first compared with a conceptually new ICESat SIT product retrieved from an algorithm employing modified ice density. Both data sets are compared to SIT estimates from upward-looking sonar (ULS) in the Weddell Sea, showing mean differences (MD) and standard deviations (SD) of 1.29 (0.65) m for Envisat-ULS, while we find 1.11 (0.81) m for ICESat-ULS, respectively. The inter-comparisons are conducted for three seasons except winter, based on the ICESat operating periods. According to the results, the differences between Envisat and ICESat SIT reveal significant temporal and spatial variations. More specifically, the smallest seasonal SIT MD (with SD shown in brackets) of 0.00 m (0.39 m) for Envisat-ICESat for the entire Antarctic is found in spring (October–November) while larger MD of 0.52 m (0.68 m) and 0.57 m (0.45 m) exist in summer (February–March) and autumn (May–June), respectively. It is also shown that from autumn to spring, mean Envisat SIT decreases while mean ICESat SIT increases. Our findings suggest that overestimation of Envisat sea ice freeboard, potentially caused by radar backscatter originating from inside the snow layer, primarily accounts for the differences between Envisat and ICESat SIT in summer and autumn, while the uncertainties of snow depth product are not the dominant cause of the differences.To get a better understanding of the characteristics of the Envisat-derived sea ice thickness product, we firstly conduct a comprehensive comparison between Envisat and ICESat-1 sea ice thickness. Their differences reveal significant temporal and spatial variations. Our findings suggest that overestimation of Envisat sea ice freeboard primarily accounts for the differences in summer and autumn, while the uncertainties of snow depth product are not the dominant cause of the differences.

Highlights

  • Antarctic sea ice plays an important role in the global climate system by reflecting the solar energy and modulating the surface water salinity (Goosse and Zunz, 2014; Massom et al, 2018; Maksym, 2019)

  • We exclude zero thickness measured by upward-looking sonar (ULS) in the statistical calculations and divide ICESat sea ice thickness (SIT) by the sea ice concentration contained in the data for each grid

  • Antarctic sea ice thickness derived from Envisat Radar Altimeter 2 (RA-2) is firstly compared with ICESat sea ice thickness retrieved from a 390 modified ice density algorithm

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Antarctic sea ice plays an important role in the global climate system by reflecting the solar energy and modulating the surface water salinity (Goosse and Zunz, 2014; Massom et al, 2018; Maksym, 2019). In the context of global warming and the significant declines of Arctic sea ice cover, Antarctic sea ice extent has unexpectedly increased over recent decades (Zhang, 2007; Parkinson and Cavalieri, 2012; Comiso et al, 2017), but dropped to a historic low in 2017 (Turner and Comiso, 2017). Sea ice thickness combined with sea ice extent is necessary to quantify the sea ice volume and sea ice mass (e.g., Kurtz and Markus, 2012; Massonnet et al, 2013). Changes in sea ice volume can influence the fresh water input into the Southern Ocean. Sea ice thickness is necessary for assessing sea ice mass balance, the surface energy budget, and predicting changes in the polar climate system. More accurate estimations are needed to monitor and quantify global sea ice volume more precisely (Connor et al, 2009), and improve sea ice components in model simulations (e.g., McLaren et al, 2006)

Objectives
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.